-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Once Saved Always Saved?
- Thread starter JSM17
- Start date
- Status
No, most liberals attack the inspiration of the Bible. In fact they begin by attacking the veracity of the Word of God, and then begin to reject the rest of the fundamentals of the Bible including the deity of Christ, His atonement, His bodily resurrection, etc. In essence they are unbelievers.Agnus_Dei said:
You should really think through your logic here Amy. St. John states: While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled.Amy.G said:
The only one LOST is the son of perdition?!?! He got LOST? How? If Judas was never really with the pack to begin with, how could Judas be LOST?
I just don’t see a whole lot of evidence for us to examine from Holy Scripture that states the true state Judas was in at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, when He called Judas to follow Him.
Did Judas know who this Jesus was before he was called and jumped on the opportunity to follow Him, just to betray Jesus in 3 years time? A lot of speculation…
My thinking is that Judas was totally onboard with Jesus in the beginning and at some point became dissatisfied with the direction Jesus was headed, in regard to the then present Roman occupation and thus made a decision on his own free will to stop following Jesus in his heart, which became hardened (Judas then became lost) and thus betrayed Jesus with a kiss.
In XC
-
Acts 1:16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.Agnus_Dei said:
Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
John 13:21 When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
John 13:27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
John 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
--From John 6:70 we see that Judas was not totally onboard from the beginning. Jesus chose 12. Early in his ministry Jesus declared that one of them was a devil, and that was early on. Throughout his ministry he knew which one would betray him, and Judas knew too. Judas kept the purse. Throughout he was a thief. He stole from the disciples. His heart was never right with God.
How did Judas KNOW that Jesus knew that he was going to betray Christ? Did Judas have some foreknowledge of Christ in some vision or a secret meeting with the devil and a plan was hatched? Did Judas KNOW that Jesus was to be crucified on a Roman Cross after his betrayal? Obviously NOT, b/c Judas wouldn’t have took the money back and proclaim that he had betrayed innocent blood.DHK said:
Where do you people come up with this stuff?
Judas stealing money from the box is the only sin recorded, prior to the betrayal. The other 11 apostles had accounts recorded of them of sins which included unbelief, lust for position and power, not being mindful of the things of the spirit but of man, all the disciples left Him and went back to their prior occupations, Peter was called ‘Satan’ and Peter denied Christ 3 times in one night, falsely condemning people to fire when Jesus said He came to save, etc.DHK said:
Still there’s not enough to go on in Holy Scripture that can point to the true state of Judas’ heart at the beginning. I said at “some point” Judas became dissatisfied. I’m not going to say that Judas was a lost soul, damned to hell at the very beginning.
In XC
-
Nothing good is ever read about Judas's life.Agnus_Dei said:
When the sinful woman poured precious ointment on Jesus head, washed his feet with her tears, wiped them with her hair; Judas had nothing but condemnation. "Why was not this money given to the poor," he complained. He lived a wretched life of betrayal. In the end Christ gave him every chance to repent before he betrayed him, but he would not. In fact he allowed Satan to enter him, and become not "demon-possessed," but Satan-possessed. This was the work of Satan himself that Judas was doing. It was a fulfillment of prophecy, but Judas allowed himself to be the vehicle of that fulfillment. It is not that he didn't have a choice. He did. He was not forced to make wicked choices. He chose to live a wicked lifestyle, and he did. He was a pretender, a fraud, a fake, a hypocrite. And he sold his act to the others. For in the upper room the others said: "Is it I?"
As explained above it wasn't. His condemnation of the sinful woman, her act of adoration, his condemnation of the "wasteful use of her "wealth" was pitiful!
And everyone of these disciples, when rebuked, repented of the sins that they were rebuked for. Judas never repented.
From the beginning Jesus called him the "son of perdition." What other conclusion can one draw?
Still you haven't demonstrated your claim that Judas KNEW the thoughts of Jesus, that Judas knew that Christ knew that he would betray Him.DHK said:
IF Judas was this wicked, nasty individual, why then didn't Judas after the kiss of betrayal just keep the money, leave town, get drunk and shack up with a whore? Why did he instead, this wicked man, go back and return the money and state that he'd betrayed innocent blood?
Note: I'm not claiming that Judas repented and was saved. Judas obviously, this wicked of all men, had remorse from what he'd done...but having remorse and repenting are two different things. Judas became lost and remained lost even unto his death, regardless of him feeling remorse.
In XC
-
You are not making sense. Christ is the one that is omniscient; not Judas.Agnus_Dei said:
Not even the disciples understood the thoughts or even the sayings of Jesus.
Why would you think that Judas would have more knowledge than the disciples?? You are not making sense.
However, the Scriptures clearly say that Christ (in His omniscience) knew who would betray Him. Remember Christ is God. He knows all things. He knew who would betray Him, and thus points out Judas as the son of perdition. This truth is self-evident.
Although he never truly repented he did feel remorse. He felt sorry for what he had done. He felt guilt. It was the guilt of betraying an innocent man that drove him to throw the money back into the temple, and then in guilt and feeling sorry for himself and what he had done (but not in true repentance) he went out and hung himself. He was a wicked man who died a wicked death.
Satan entered him, used him, and then when he was finished with him, discarded him as a useless piece of trash. And that is how he probably felt.
One doesn't "become lost." They are born lost. They need to get saved. Once saved they never lose the salvation or eternal life that Christ gives them. Something eternal can never be "uneternal."
DeafPosttrib
New Member
DHK,
We all agree that Christ is omniscient. The question is, WHY does Christ choose Judas as his disciple in the first place before he betryal Christ?
What is "disciple" means?
What Judas was doing just shortly right after he was chosen as disciple? Do nothing? Or, what he was doing with Jesus and disciples in the first of two years of Christ's three year ministry?
Was Judas follow Christ in the first place?
In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
We all agree that Christ is omniscient. The question is, WHY does Christ choose Judas as his disciple in the first place before he betryal Christ?
What is "disciple" means?
What Judas was doing just shortly right after he was chosen as disciple? Do nothing? Or, what he was doing with Jesus and disciples in the first of two years of Christ's three year ministry?
Was Judas follow Christ in the first place?
In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!
First Amy, I’m not trying to prove with my past post’s that Judas died “saved”. Holy Scripture and the Church Fathers agree that Judas was lost at his death.Amy.G said:
My posts are saying that Holy Scripture doesn’t outline Judas’ life, thus we don’t have enough to go on to say for a fact that Judas was lost prior to Jesus calling him.
All we know is that Jesus in John 17, prayed for His disciples and that He’s kept them, but one is lost. Obviously Jesus is speaking of Judas here, which begs the question.
How can Judas be “lost”, IF Judas was never apart of the group to begin with?
If I’m caring and guarding 12 sheep, can one not become lost?
OSAS is a dangerous and false doctrine. The cop-out answer is always “they were never truly saved to begin with”. So the OSASers judge people’s lives based on one action. Judas betrayed the Son of Man, so he was lost his whole life, says the OSASer. John Doe a preacher for 30 years, has an affair with the Church secretary, quits the ministry, divorces his wife and shacks up with this other woman and stops attending Church, obviously to the OSASer, this man was never truly saved to begin with.
In XC
-
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
The notion that OSAS’ers fall back on is the one that if a man is in the end lost, he was never simply saved. Do they not realize that when they say this that they are assuming some other things as well to be true by this stated belief, namely determinsitic fatalism? Let’s test there belief by following out the logical ends of the argument.
The real answers that needs to be answered to test out this notion of whether or not one can loose their salvation, is whether or not the will of man is free to accept or reject salvation. If mans will is not free, deterministic fatalism rules. If mans will is free to accept salvation, where is the evidence that the will cannot reject that which it was involved in accepting? Does the will cease to be free at salvation, if in fact it could have ever been free before? Where is the evidence of this found in Scripture, matters of fact, reason, or truths of immutable justice?
Cannot those that try and say that if one is lost they never could have been saved understand that by doing so they are of necessity accepting absolute fatalistic determination of who is and who is not saved as their firmly held position? One cannot distance themselves from the fatalistic determinism of Calvinism and agree that if one is not saved in the end, such a one was never saved in the beginning.
The question surrounds whether or not the will of man is free to participate in receiving salvation, without which no one will be saved, or if man’s will is not involved at all and as such has no free will. If one admits to having a free will prior to salvation and must exercise ones free will in receiving salvation, where does Scripture or reason indicate the will is no longer free to reject the gift it has received?
One thing that needs to be clearly understood is the source of this OSAS notion. It stems from the denial of free will and has its roots deeply planted in the deterministic fatalism of Augustine and Calvin. This is the camp that spawned such a notion. The logic is oft repeated, if mans will has nothing to do with salvation it can have nothing to do with loosing it, therefore if one is not saved in the end it proves that they were never saved in the beginning. This is nothing more than reasoning in a circle upon an unfounded presupposition, i.e.,man’s will is not free and is not involved in salvation.
So the real question is, is the will of man free to accept salvations offer? If not, tell us again how you avoid determinisitc fatalism.
The real answers that needs to be answered to test out this notion of whether or not one can loose their salvation, is whether or not the will of man is free to accept or reject salvation. If mans will is not free, deterministic fatalism rules. If mans will is free to accept salvation, where is the evidence that the will cannot reject that which it was involved in accepting? Does the will cease to be free at salvation, if in fact it could have ever been free before? Where is the evidence of this found in Scripture, matters of fact, reason, or truths of immutable justice?
Cannot those that try and say that if one is lost they never could have been saved understand that by doing so they are of necessity accepting absolute fatalistic determination of who is and who is not saved as their firmly held position? One cannot distance themselves from the fatalistic determinism of Calvinism and agree that if one is not saved in the end, such a one was never saved in the beginning.
The question surrounds whether or not the will of man is free to participate in receiving salvation, without which no one will be saved, or if man’s will is not involved at all and as such has no free will. If one admits to having a free will prior to salvation and must exercise ones free will in receiving salvation, where does Scripture or reason indicate the will is no longer free to reject the gift it has received?
One thing that needs to be clearly understood is the source of this OSAS notion. It stems from the denial of free will and has its roots deeply planted in the deterministic fatalism of Augustine and Calvin. This is the camp that spawned such a notion. The logic is oft repeated, if mans will has nothing to do with salvation it can have nothing to do with loosing it, therefore if one is not saved in the end it proves that they were never saved in the beginning. This is nothing more than reasoning in a circle upon an unfounded presupposition, i.e.,man’s will is not free and is not involved in salvation.
So the real question is, is the will of man free to accept salvations offer? If not, tell us again how you avoid determinisitc fatalism.
Last edited by a moderator:
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: And the real contradiction of that is that they also believe that they had nothing to do with that action in all reality. Their ‘one act of faith’ is nothing more or less than ‘one act of necessitated determinism’ by God, when carefully, fairly, and logically examined.
He was doing the same thing other pretenders do.DeafPosttrib said:
Look at what John says:
1 John 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
--John speaks of many pretenders in the church. The test is faithfulness. Judas was not faithful. This was proven in his lifestyle, as I have already pointed out.
Remember that Jesus was both God and man at the same time. He was fully God and fully man. However, at times he laid aside some of Divine attributes, such as his omnipotence. He could have called 72,000 angels to rescue him from going to the cross, as he told Peter. But that was not His or His Father's will. So he did not take that path. Oftentimes he laid aside his Divine omniscience, but not all the time. He knew that Judas would betray him, and yet for the sake of the fulfillment of Scripture chose him anyway. At the same time, taking into consideration the free will of man, he gave Judas every chance to repent and choose Him as His Messiah. At every turn Judas rejected. Christ did not force Judas to reject Him, he just knew it would happen. Man must have a choice whether to choose Christ or not. This was the choice given to the entire nation:
John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
--Christ knew that the nation in general would also reject Him.
He still died for their sins, as well as the sins of the world (1John 2:1,2)
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: Faithful liars, adulterers, murderers, stealers or faithful at coveting? Faithfulness in what DHK?
Heavenly Pilgrim said:
1. Those who believe in eternal security fall back on nothing except the grace of God to save sinners. Man cannot save anyone. Man does not determine the salvation of anyone. If you have that ability then you are greater than we are and assume the position of God.
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
--Only God knows the heart.
--Only God knows then that are his.
--We certainly don't know those that are truly saved and those that are not; thus the example of Judas. The disciples did not know that he was not saved until the very end. He was a pretender. But if you put yourself in the place of God, and pretend that you knew all along that he was saved, then you are indeed a great man.
In the end, this man was lost. He pretended all along. But all along he was lost. He could not lose what he never had.
This is not deterministic fatalism. It is not Islam, what you have described.
Here is a quote from Spurgeon, those who say he was a staunch Calvinist: (Commenting on Joel 2:32)
[/FONT]
Obviously the proof that man has a free will is found in a plethora of Scripture as Spurgeon pointed out: Rom.10:13; John 3:16; Acts 10:43, and so many others. They are called the "whosoever" will verses. And there are many of them. The choice is ours to be made. This is not deterministic fatalism. It is not Allah that rules our fate. It is a loving Father that gives us a choice.
Why must you bring Islamic doctrine into this debate? Do you have a fascination with it? A man must make a choice: Receive Christ or reject Christ. If his decision is genuine, and he genuinely receives Christ as Saviour he is saved; if not he is not saved. It is as simple as that. Keep things simple. There is a KISS rule. I will not spell out the acronymn for you here, for you probably know what it is.
The Bible does not teach Islamic teachings. Why do you insist it does? Spurgeon was a Calvinist. Go back and see what he taught. Christianity does not teach "fatalistic determinism," Islam does.
That is what the Bible teaches.
That is not what the Bible teaches. What happened to all the "whosoever will" verses?
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
[FONT="]
[/FONT][/FONT]
HP: What do you see Spurgeon saying here DHK? Is he saying that man determines who is saved by who calls upon the Lord, or is he simply steeped in the maelstrom of confusion Calvinism weaves and simply reiterating the Calvinist notion that all that call upon the Lord have been given the ability to do so by God, all others being predestined to be lost?
The ‘whosoever’ Spurgeon speaks of is only understood IF one understands the hidden nuances of Calvinistic theology, the ‘whosoever’ simply referring to those that are enabled do, not anyone in general. If not, are you going to tell us that anyone can be saved? You need a good lesson in Calvinistic theology DHK. N
NE CAN CALL UPON THE LORD UNTIL GOD ENABLES THEM TO CALL. Show us where Spurgeon would disagree with that tenant of Calvinism. In reality, the ‘whosoever’ Spurgeon speaks of only applies to those that are granted an effectual calling. We are right back to the predestination of the damned as well as the saved. Those that are granted an effectual calling are the lucky saved ones, and those which God withholds the effectual calling from were chosen by God from the beginning to their fate by withholding that ‘without which’ they never had the slightest chance of being saved. So much for Spurgeon’s ‘whosoever.’ What we see here is a prime example of what is wrong with Calvinisitic dogma. It tries to embrace opposing arguments and does nothing but create a maelstrom of confusion. Just as Spurgeon tries to claim that ‘whosever’ can embrace the gospel, in reality his ‘whosoever’ is predetermined by God to all those God grants an effectual call and gives to these selected few the ability to turn and accept Christ.
PS: You charge me falsely DHK, but what is new? I have not mentioned or made reference to Islam one time on this list. For you to act as if I have, is nothing short of unadultrated deceit. I have addressed the fatalistic determination of Calvinism alone. If in fact you know that Islam embraces fatalistic determination, all the more reason to reject it in ones own theology as well.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: I have never implied that salvation is or by works. What I would say is that one that claims to have faith, yet has no works, is simply deceived. We are not saved by our works, but neither will any be saved apart from works, for faith without works is dead. Keeping the faith cannot be done without works in accordance to ones faith,……unless it is dead faith you are bent on keeping.
Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Jas 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: DHK has also stated that all men are liars, therefore keeping the faith involves lying by necessity.
It has been stated over and over that no sin can separate one from God due to OSAS, and no one can live above sin, not even with the proffered help of God Himself, therefore committing adultery, lying, stealing, etc., etc., are all a necessitated part and parcel to the keeping of the faith. One can only conclude that nothing is inconsistent in the theology of OSAS, in keeping the faith and sin itself.
If ones theology embraces sin in such a manner as to believe that it is impossible to be freed from, how is that religion not properly viewed as a sinning religion or a theology that embraces, and as such, encourages sin?
- Status